Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The point is MP-UAV are a much more cost effective way of providing maritime ISR, cheaper to procure, cheaper to operate, no need for expensive traditional pilot training etc. I just think that the option should have been explored.

they are not multi role, they can only do ISTAR. They are cheaper to procure and operate but that doesnít mean they arenít still expensive. UAVs of that size still require certified pilots. There are also I believe, limitations on them for an airspace regulation point of view.

The non-MPA tasks is the RFP are nice to haves, if they are core needs then there would be no reason why a tactical transport (or two) along side 3-4 MP-UAV could not be acquired. The cost should not be so much different as the cost of the kit to transform a platform such as the C-295 into a MPA is close to that of a MP-UAV.

no they arenít (they are roles assigned by Government) they may the CASA a multi-role more versatile and better VFM aircraft.

Just thought the option should have been explored, Israel is replacing its Sea Scan MPAs with MP versions of their Heron UAV which will have a 45hr patrol endurance!

they are not multi role, they can only do ISTAR. They are cheaper to procure and operate but that doesnít mean they arenít still expensive. UAVs of that size still require certified pilots.

Everything is expensive depending on the point you view it from. Comparing a UAV to manned platform the UAV is the cheapest option. The airframe is smaller so cost less to buy, maintain and operate. There is no need for complex life support equipment and human comfort facilities etc. If VFM is the criteria then a UAV/dedicated transport will be the winner, even if it means two system. If the Don cannot handle it, then the UAV can be a fully NS asset.

Originally Posted by DeV

There are also I believe, limitations on them for an airspace regulation point of view.

That was true but to a large extent the UAV industry has reacted to this and the latest offerings are for operation in controlled airspace. For the majority of our patrol area the UAV would be much much lower than civil traffic.

Originally Posted by DeV

no they arenít (they are roles assigned by Government) they may the CASA a multi-role more versatile and better VFM aircraft.

Lets be honest, the additional roles are because the current platform was able to perform these along side its primary roles. If we has a KingAir I doubt the RFP would require 6t or 20 troops as carrying capacity. Just like the Cessna/PC12NG, the requirement is tailored to an existing pre-selected solution. But having a split between UAV and manned platform would allow a better optimisation of both platforms. The UAV would perform the long range high endurance low level ISR missions while a dedicated manned transport would provide the rest of the requirements. You would still have a ramp to drop rafts, you still can do Medevac, you can still transport 20+ troops etc.

Multi-roles does not always mean better VFM, "Jack of all trades/master of none!".

Because they canít do anything except surveillance (and possibly engagement)

Though I would broaden "surveillance" into maritime ISR and at the higher end electronic air warfare capabilities, but I am imaging that you are pointing out the inability of generic RPAS not able to deploy a UNI-PAC II once it has located a vessel in distress.... though once located by the RPAS you can either call in a utility transport like a CASA and get the loadmaster to biff one out the back or if a light payload capable Rotary UAV is deployed off the OPV's once it is within tasking range it can transit to the distressed vessel and deploy a UNI-PAC II or similar.

Realistically it is more prudent to consider maritime RPAS platforms as capability enablers that extend the prime manned platform rather than a silver bullet solution.

...Realistically it is more prudent to consider maritime RPAS platforms as capability enablers that extend the prime manned platform rather than a silver bullet solution.

This.

RPAS are a piece in the jigsaw, they don't replace everything.

Interestingly, it takes more people to put an MQ-9 Reaper in the air than it does a Sentinel, Sentry or RIVET JOINT - cheaper to buy they may be, and long endurance they are, bit cheap to make operational they aren't.

RPAS also don't do judgement calls 400 miles out into the Atlantic in a near hurricane force storm - people do that, and people who are there and can feel the pressures on the flight controls make much better ones than people watching it on TV.

That is right they extend the capability output beyond the reach of the primary manned platform. They are the finder and the manned platform is the keeper.

Originally Posted by ropebag

Interestingly, it takes more people to put an MQ-9 Reaper in the air than it does a Sentinel, Sentry or RIVET JOINT - cheaper to buy they may be, and long endurance they are, bit cheap to make operational they aren't.

Essentially because there are more shifts involved due to the flight endurance. Lets be honest here talking MQ-9's or god forbid Triton is a bit alternative universe with respect to Irelands conops when a Selex ES Falco or IAI Heron is more pragmatic and budget friendly. There is a quantum of difference between fairly modest RPAS platforms like Falco with limits to their datalink range and capacity compared to premium US kit that is WGS routed.

Have to say whoever spun the meme about keeping Rivet Joint in the air being cheaper than a MQ-9 ... yeah right .. I'ii just leave it there.

Originally Posted by ropebag

RPAS also don't do judgement calls 400 miles out into the Atlantic in a near hurricane force storm - people do that, and people who are there and can feel the pressures on the flight controls make much better ones than people watching it on TV.

I wouldn't disagree with the people analogy though I would point out that it would be very marginal for an air component commander to authorise a SAR tasking using a crewed MPA asset during and into such conditions anyway.

Just saw that the Czech's are ordering 2 more cargo 295's for themselves with delivery in 2020, so I'm presuming after that would be the likely period for any order from us? How well will the 235's perform out to that?http://www.janes.com/article/81470/c...itional-c-295s

RFPs due for the Casa replacement on June 20th, so hopefully everyone's handed in their paperwork for exam 1, and are being scrutinised for exam 2. Regarding the C27J, saw this model/vaporware proposal on another website; the armament might be a bit more that being looked for in our programme, but shows it could be a possibility, if it's ro-ro systems suite is integrated correctly

What we actually got is one for one replacements with three of the current fleet looking at retirement in the not to distant future, so if builds for the peacocks and Eithne are not signed off within a very short space of time, given build times we could actually be back to where we were in 1987/88.

It remains to be seen if GBS will become a 9th vessel or if Ciara/Orla/Eithne will be retired before a CPV replacement or MRV goes to tender

I get the feeling that the future ships will need to be at least on the blocks before they decommission anything........but only as long as the current CoS remains.

Given the man power shortages we could lose ships very fast and not plan rebuilds until we have sufficent people to put the newer ones to sea.If we go down that route we could see a replacement for Eithne but never for the CPVs. Again I reckon with the CPVs that we could get a single OPV to replace the two. If anyships eed to be tied up because of manpower shortages it will be a huge game changer and will be used as an excuse to replace hulls one for one.

The NS was a 7 vessel Navy until Niamh made it 8 in 2001

Nope as L.E. Deirdre was still in Srvice until 2001, became an 8 ship Navy in 1999 with the delivery of L.E. Roisin

When was Setanta paid off? I have memories of her still cluttering up the basin after Eithne entered service. So she would have been in service in 1982, when the NS had CM10, CM11, CM12, P20, P21, P22, P23 and A15
Thats 8 to me.
Sorry for going off topic. I blame dev.

German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
German 2: Private? I am a general!
German 1: That is the bad news.

When was Setanta paid off? I have memories of her still cluttering up the basin after Eithne entered service. So she would have been in service in 1982, when the NS had CM10, CM11, CM12, P20, P21, P22, P23 and A15
Thats 8 to me.
Sorry for going off topic. I blame dev.

Yeah I tried that maths but Setanta was long gone before I joined in 1985 and Eithne had only been in service 12 months at that point....and Banba had decommissioned in 1983...and was gone a year later... I then did the maths with Ferdia Setanta and Banba in the equation.. and still came up short as that was 77/78 and Aoife and Aisling had yet to enter service